§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 6 (Reservation of rights of Lord Advocate).
§
MR. A. GRANT moved an Amendment to leave out the concluding words "or custom." The one recommendation which attached to the Bill, as he understood it, and as he was quite sure the people of Scotland understood it, was that it gave to the Scotch people an Officer who was' to have charge of the administrative Business of Scotland, without being interfered with, or hampered by any competing or overruling authority. But what would become of that unity of administration if the clause was passed in its present form? The clause reserved to the Lord Advocate all the rights, duties, powers, and privileges which had hitherto belonged to
893
his Office. He knew that this was rather a delicate subject; but, with all due respect to the Lord Advocate, and to his Office, and with no desire to detract from its importance or its dignity, he must say that it seemed to him that the reservation made by this clause was altogether incompatible with the proper working of the new arrangements. He would take, for example, the part which the Lord Advocate had hitherto played in the matter of patronage, with regard to Government appointments in Scotland, or the part which the Lord Advocate had played in taking the initiative in Government legislation for Scotland; and there were many other functions which the Lord Advocate had hither to performed in his capacity as political Representative of the Government of Scotland. Now, all these duties and functions had hitherto belonged to the Lord Advocate by custom; but by the 5th clause they had already provided that a large number of these functions were henceforth to devolve on the new Minister. If in the future the Lord Advocate was to occupy a position somewhat analogous to that of the chief Law Officers of the Crown in England and Ireland, that ought to be clearly indicated in the Bill. But if, on the other hand, the Bill meant what it said, and the Lord Advocate was in future to perform all these functions which he had hitherto discharged under statute or by custom, then he (Mr. Grant) greatly feared that the result would be that they would find themselves landed in all those difficulties and all those inconveniences which were certain to arise from having two ill-defined and overlapping authorities; and he had no doubt that that would detract to a very great extent from the benefit which they might otherwise derive from the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. His object in moving the Amendment was only to endeavour more clearly to define the relative positions of the two officials. It might be that the Government would not find themselves able to accept his Amendment; but, if that should be the case, he trusted that they would, at all events, find themselves able to explain more clearly than the Bill did as it stood what were to be the relations between the Lord Advocate and the new Minister, and what was the real line which was to divide the duties of the one from the
894
duties of the other. It was possible that if they could not see their way to accept his Amendment, they might see their way to re-cast the clause, and to make it run in this form—
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lord Advocate shall continue to exercise all the rights and privileges," &c.
He thought that would be an improvement on the clause as it stood at present, and that it would be accepted as an improvement by the people of Scotland.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "or custom." (Mr. A. Grant.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or custom' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to what the Bill proposed to do. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that the Bill took away from the Lord Advocate something which he at present possessed; but, as a matter of fact, it took away nothing at all from him—not a hair's breadth. Anyone who read the Schedule would find that it did not transfer any authority, property, or privilege which the Lord Advocate now had. The hon. Gentleman objected to the words "by custom;" but the words were used rather in a colloquial than a statutable sense. The power of the Lord Advocate existed by custom rather than by Act of Parliament. It was an old customary Office; but the Lord Advocate would still retain all the dignity, privileges, power, and authority that he ever possessed, and there was nothing in this Bill to create the smallest conflict between the Lord Advocate and the new Official. The powers to be exercised by the new Official were not the powers of the Lord Advocate at all, but were powers taken solely and entirely out of the Office and functions of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman really confounded two very different things. There might be many things in which the Lord Advocate advised the Secretary of State; but they were not a part of his duties. Indeed, it might just as well be said that other officials from whom the Secretary of State took advice had those powers. The Secretary of State, if he were wise, naturally took the advice of people who understood things better than himself. That was 895 part of the duties and functions of the Secretary of State; and there was not any foundation for supposing that there was anything in this Bill which at all impaired, in the smallest degree, the authority possessed by the Lord Advocate, either by statute or by custom.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad that the words proposed to be left out were to be retained, for this new Officer who was to be created seemed to be neither flesh nor fowl, and no one knew what he was to do. He was to carve out his own business, and he would be looked upon in Scotland as the Officer, and the Lord Advocate would be entirely subordinate. They had not heard any warm speech from the Lord Advocate in support of the Bill—indeed, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would like immensely to know how the learned Lord could possibly support a Bill of this kind? He knew perfectly well what was the opinion of the whole Scottish Bar three or four years ago.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThree or four years ago they had not got this Bill.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give him time to finish his sentence. A proposal was made; but the whole Bar rose in opposition to it, and a great deputation came up from the Scottish Bar to see him on the subject, because they maintained that the proposal then made would destroy the dignity of the Lord Advocate. What might be the arguments, political or otherwise, or the motives which had induced the Scottish Bar to take a different line of action now to that which they took before he did not know; but nothing could have been stronger than the line they took on the occasion, three or four years ago, that he referred to. If the Scottish Bar were now so enthusiastic in support of this Bill, why did not the Lord Advocate rise and support it? What had he got to say for it? He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) wanted to know now from him what his opinion was as to whether the new Officer would appropriate any of his duties; and whether his position would in any way be changed? Was he to be merely a Legal Adviser to the new Official? If so, he would no longer be Lord Advocate in the real sense of the word—he would sink into a Law Officer, and re- 896 main that and nothing more; and that was a totally different thing from the position which the Lord Advocate in Scotland had hitherto held. The Law Officers of England had never occupied the position held by the Lord Advocate in Scotland; and if there were to be these duties at all, he would much rather have seen the Lord Advocate entrusted with them. Even if it involved the result that the Lord Advocate should not necessarily be a lawyer, and should have to depend on the Solicitor General for Scotland to assist him in legal matters, he would like to know from the learned Lord Advocate what he apprehended his duties would be when this Bill was passed, if it ever was passed, as he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) certainly hoped it would not be, and how far the Lord Advocate's duties would be changed by it? It was quite clear that the more the Bill was seen by the Scotch Members the less it was liked; and he did not believe that the people of Scotland cared two straws whether it was passed or not. He was certain that unless great care was taken of the position of the Lord Advocate the learned Lord would entirely sink from the possession of ancient duties which he so worthily fulfilled; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be very sorry if that should prove to be the case.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was very glad to have heard the expression with which the right hon. Gentleman concluded; but he wished, in a very few words, to answer his questions in the order in which he had put them. The right hon. Gentleman had first asked as to the position taken up by the Faculty of Advocates with respect to this Bill, and had referred to the position which they took up when his own Bill was before Parliament in 1878, when they raised a strong opposition against it. But that was not their position with respect to the present Bill at all; on the contrary, by a majority, they had passed a Resolution favourable to it. That Resolution, when contrasted with the position which the Faculty took up in 1878, would show that the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman had formed of the respective characters of the two measures, and of the relative effect of them upon the Office of the Lord Advocate, was by no means the same as that of those who 897 understood the Office, perhaps, better than the right hon. Gentleman himself did. It was an exceedingly significant fact that there was a different position taken up upon this Bill; and he entirely agreed with the Body to which he belonged in the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill would have been greatly injurious to the position of the Lord Advocate than this Bill would be. It would require very few words to explain how that was so. He would not repeat what had been said more than once in reference to this Bill by the Home Secretary. It would be superfluous to do so, as they really wished to get on with the Bill. He did not think he had seen the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his place yesterday, otherwise he might have heard some of the explanations that were given in regard to the various points raised. It was quite plain, from the exposition already given, that there was no function or duty of the Lord Advocate which would devolve upon the new Officer at all. The right hon. Gentleman further asked, what would be the relations of the Lord Advocate to the new Officer? He thought he might say that they would be the same, and necessarily the same, as the relations at present existing between the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State, or any other Public Department. The Secretary of State performed certain duties, and when he thought fit he advised with the Lord Advocate, as he did with other Departments, and generally acted upon the advice thus received. He saw no reason to doubt that the existing relations between the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate would be repeated in the future relations between the Lord Advocate and the new functionary. He (the Lord Advocate) would be the very last person to be a party to anything which, in his judgment, would directly or indirectly tend to lower the dignity of his Office, or even have a semblance of doing so; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite might make his mind comparatively easy after the line which had been taken by the Faculty of Advocates on this subject.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him some explanation was required of the words "by custom." The Home Secretary had referred to 898 legal custom and colloquial custom. If it was the case, as stated by the Lord Advocate, that the Secretary of State had conceded in many things sometimes more and sometimes less to the Lord Advocate, then the Committee should understand what were the duties of the Lord Advocate's Office by legal custom. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) had referred to various matters—the conduct of legal business, the bringing in of Bills, and the conduct of Parliamentary Business, and patronage had also been referred to; was that a legal or a colloquial custom? Another mutter he wished to refer to was in regard to statistics, statistics of local taxation. Up to a few Sessions ago Members were referred to the Lord Advocate as being responsible for these statistics. Would this subject rest with the Lord Advocate, or would it be conveyed to the new Office? He disagreed with the hon. Member for Leith when he said the effect of the creation of this new Office would be to reduce the Lord Advocate to the position of an English or an Irish Attorney General; the Office of Lord Advocate would remain in an infinitely higher position. Not only was he the Attorney General for Scotland, but he was the Minister of Justice for Scotland, and he performed great and high functions, which did not appertain to the Office of Attorney General. The Lord Advocate would still maintain that high and dignified position, though he must convey much of the minor functions that had devolved upon him from the Secretary of State to the new Officer. Before the Bill was disposed of, however, they ought to know what were the duties of a legal character remaining with the Lord Advocate.
§ MR. A. GRANTsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to think that he had expressed a wish that the Lord Advocate should become a mere Legal Officer. He had expressed no such wish. On the contrary, he had said he had no such wish. What he did was to ask the Home Secretary whether that would be the effect of the Bill or not?
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to remind the Committee—["Oh!"]—if the Committee wished to go to bed, he should move to report Progress. The Home Secretary told 899 the House yesterday that the whole thing was of an experimental character, and that it could not be expected that the Lord Advocate, or any other Minister, could say distinctly what duties would fall within the sphere of the new Office.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, they were always delighted to hear the Lord Advocate; but he wished to call attention to one observation that had fallen from him. He had told the Committee that the Bill did not detract from the dignity and position of his Office; but he could not have studied the 2nd clause, which realty put the Lord Advocate at the bottom of the Board.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like an answer to the question he had put. If no further explanation was to be given, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Grant) would divide the Committee.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should like to save the Committee the trouble of a Division by arriving at a decision by a shorter process. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy asked a question which had been answered 50 times. Over and over again had he repeated it; but he would give the answer once more. The Government had no intention whatever of taking anything from the Lord Advocate that belonged or had belonged to the Office; and for the further satisfaction of the hon. Member he would say the Government had no intention of degrading the Lord Advocate to the unhappy position of the Attorney General or Solicitor General for England.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information as to who would be responsible for the statistics of local taxation.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could only give this answer—that it was a great subject, but one upon which he was entirely ignorant. If the Lord Advocate had been responsible before he would be so hereafter; if the Secretary of State was responsible, then the new Minister would be responsible for it hereafter.
§ MR. A. GRANTsaid, as they were assured by the Home Secretary that not a single hair's breadth of the functions of the Lord Advocate would be touched by the Bill, he could only express his 900 wonder that the clause was put into the Bill at all. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the views he had expressed, would be prepared to accept an Amendment, which was to be proposed by some other Member, for expunging the clause altogether. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant). That hon. Member's Amendment not being accepted, and having no particular desire that it should be, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member agreed with himself in thinking that the whole clause should be omitted. He rose, therefore, to make the Motion of which he and several other Members had given Notice, the omission of the clause from the Bill; and he ventured to say he could show good cause why it should be so omitted. Qui s'excuse s'accuse. Nothing would prejudice or interfere with any rights, privileges, or duties attaching to the Office of Lord Advocate, such was the assurance of the Lord Advocate, and that was the belief of the Faculty of Advocates. There was also the assurance of the Home Secretary that there was nothing in the intention of the Bill to interfere with or prejudice the Office of Lord Advocate, or the rights and duties that had devolved upon it by Acts of Parliament or by custom. The Committee had had these assurances from those who introduced the Bill, and should understand its merits and intention. Why, then, should the Committee sanction the introduction of a clause to do that, or endeavour to do that, which they were assured would be carried out by the Act itself? Either it was a superfluous clause, or there was something in the Bill which the Committee had not seen which would interfere with the duties, the rights, or the privileges of the Lord Advocate. For these reasons, not wishing to detain the Committee longer at that hour of the morning, he moved the Amendment which stood in his name, and should certainly take a Division upon it.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Sir John Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
901THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought the very fact that the question had over and over again been raised and discussed was ample justification for the clause. What has passed had shown that there was in some minds a fear that the functions of the Office he had the honour to hold would be interfered with. An assurance to the contrary had been given; but was it not better to have that assurance in an explicit and authentic form in the Bill? If there was any doubt about the assurances given, this was the more authoritative way of removing the doubt. In addition to that, there must be understood to be this general reason—to prevent the possibility of misapprehension as to whether the transfer to the new Officer of duties under the Bill might or might not interfere with the specific statutory powers which, under some Acts of Parliament, the Lord Advocate possessed. There was a possibility of that, and it was better to have no doubt about it. He referred to the power of suing, for instance, and there were other powers which he need not go into, and which would be familiar to many hon. Members. It was best to make it clear that there was no such purpose as was apprehended by some; and the clause made it perfectly clear that any duties or powers now laid by statute on the Lord Advocate and inherent in his Office would remain intact. The criticisms which had been pressed to this clause might be applied with equal appropriateness to every saving clause.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, there was a large amount of Scotch patronage. With whom did it rest at the present moment?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWith a few exceptions with the Secretary of State.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he asked the question because he was informed that a Mr. F. Richardson was promoted to a clerkship in Edinburgh, at £600 or £700 a-year, over several seniors, and his sole recommendation seemed to be that he had acted for the Prime Minister in the management of the Mid Lothian campaign of 1880. Were the different appointments in the gift of the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State? He did not quite see whether in the clause the patronage of 902 the Lord Advocate was safeguarded; the wording of the clause did not say anything about patronage. If the clause was not rejected, would it not be better to insert "patronage," so that this might not lapse into the hands of the new Officer?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the whole of the patronage of Scotland was in the hands of the Secretary of State. That was a matter of elementary knowledge in Constitutional Scottish history. In these matters the Secretary of State almost always took the advice of the Lord Advocate; but the patronage was the patronage of the Secretary of State, for which he was responsible. His learned Friend told him that the Crown agents were appointed by the Lord Advocate; but they were agents and deputies of the Lord Advocate. As to the particular appointment to which the hon. Member referred, he was sorry to say he could not give any information.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he thought this was an important statement, and explained what he was looking for—that the whole of the patronage would be in the hands of the Minister of State, and in the Schedule would be transferred to the now Minister. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, some Sittings since, made some remarks about patronage, and he really began to think there was something in the view he took By the Acts quoted in the Schedule the Secretary of State had the power of appointing and removing all the officers of those large Boards in Scotland. This opened up quite a new view of the case.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, an answer was really required. There was no doubt that a great deal of the patronage would pass to the now Officer; but the Secretary of State said it was all vested in him.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI said at present.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the question was asked, and the Committee were given to understand that all patronage would be vested in the Secretary of State; now it appeared that his portion would pass to someone else. It would be better to have it all explained; and as the point had been raised, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give an answer.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was a little hard that the right hon. Gentleman should go away during the Lest part of the discussion, and then complain of the want of explanation.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was present the whole time the Home Secretary was speaking.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there had been long discussions during which the right hon. Gentleman was absent. But, passing away from that, he was answering a question as to the existing state of things, whether the patronage was in the hands of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate? No doubt the patronage which belonged to the Office under the Statutes which would be transferred would be in the hands of the new Officer. That was always intended to be done, and that would leave the legal patronage exactly where it was before, still remaining with the Secretary of State, acting on the advice of the Lord Advocate. The appointments to the Fishery and other Boards would be made by the new Official. From first to last this had always been stated; and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had been trying to find out what had been said half-a-dozen times during the discussion. He would say, again, the patronage would go with the arrangement of the powers to be transferred to the new Official. What was not transferred would remain with the Secretary of State, and continue to be exercised by him as before.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should vote for expunging the clause, with the object of saving the dignity of the position of Lord Advocate. It seemed to him that under a good many Acts the Lord Advocate had acted as the subordinate to the Secretary of State, and when the transfer of duties to the new Officer took place the Lord Advocate would become his subordinate. To take an illustration—for some little time the Local Taxation Returns had been prepared in the Office of the Lord Advocate. If under the Bill the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in regard to these Taxation Returns were transferred to the new Officer, and as by custom, if not by law, the Lord Advocate had produced these Returns and submitted them 904 to the Secretary of State, the result would be that the Lord Advocate would become the subordinate of the new Officer. That, it seemed to him, would be bringing the Office of Lord Advocate into a humiliating position, and to relieve him from that the clause should be omitted.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, as to the appointment of Sheriffs, Procurators Fiscal, and other persons connected with the law, as to which at present the Lord Advocate gave advice, though the appointments were made by the Secretary of State, would that fall to the new Officer? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] Then the Lord Advocate would continue to advise the Home Secretary in some matters, but not in others? The appointment of Lord High Commissioner, with whom would that be vested? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Secretary of State.] When they came to the discussion of the 38 Acts mentioned in the Schedule they would learn more about it; but he anticipated that the discussion would occupy a considerable time.
§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he entirely agreed with his right hon. and gallant Friend in his opposition to the Bill; but he must himself say he did not feel able to support the Amendment, and he would explain why. Yesterday, when the clause was arrived at, though not formally put, an opinion was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposed Amendment was something quite unreasonable. The opponents of the Bill, he said, had dwelt strongly on the danger they saw in the Bill to the position of Lord Advocate; and here was a clause to protect the Office and position of Lord Advocate, and he seemed to think it was inconsistent on the part of opponents of the Bill to propose such an Amendment as the Committee were now considering. But from what he had heard from his right hon. and gallant Friend, and others who had put the Notices on the Paper, he understood the motive was not to indicate any disapproval of the intention expressed in the clause for the protection of the position of Lord Advocate, but that they considered it an altogether wrong and insufficient way of attaining that end, that the mere insertion of a clause of this kind was no protection whatever to the position of Lord Advocate. But, 905 in his opinion, the clause had a value. It was important to have in the Bill itself an expression of the good intentions of the Government with respect to the position and functions of the Lord Advocate. And he thought this was more than an expression of au intention. This clause, which had, of course, been in the Bill from the beginning, and therefore was put in in anticipation of the probable objection—this clause amounted to an admission that there was a necessity for providing a protection of the kind, an admission that there was something in the Bill which placed the position of Lord Advocate in some danger. He looked upon it as an admission that there was some force in the objection many had felt to the Bill, and on that account he should be glad to see the clause retained.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, all the arguments that had been adduced in favour of omitting the clause went to prove the necessity of retaining it. He could not understand how a contrary impression could have been made on the mind of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). In his opinion, it simply illustrated the peculiar conformation of the hon. Member's mind.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he only wished to remark, in reference to what had fallen from the Home Secretary when he reproached his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with being absent from the discussions, that the Home Secretary himself was by no means a regular attendant. Why had the Committee heard nothing of the patronage before? The Home Secretary seemed to have but a hazy idea of what was to be retained. This seemed to be a Bill for gathering into the hands of one Official the patronage of Scotland; and he had better be called at once the Patronage Secretary for Scotland, instead of the President of the Local Government Board for Scotland.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked who would be the Adviser of the Sovereign under the first Act mentioned in the Schedule?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if among the duties of the Secretary of State which would be transferred to the new Officer was that of giving such advice, clearly it would devolve upon the new Officer.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it was the first time the Committee had had that explanation.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion to omit the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Fletcher.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because, if it were carried, it simply meant adding another day to the Session. The Bill having gone the length it had gone, the Government could not allow it simply to be worried to death. But it was for hon. Members themselves to judge whether they would not try to get on with the Bill. He knew that it was very late, and that the Government were asking great sacrifices of the House; but they would be obliged to ask a greater sacrifice if they did not get on, because they would have to ask the House to sit another day. He hoped hon. Members would accept the lesser evil of the two, and try to go on with the Bill.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Prime Minister, when he gave out the order of Business, said the Bill would certainly be taken that afternoon, but, if not finished, would be put down as the second Order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and that was a fair understanding. He thought it was most unreasonable that they should be asked to sit up till 5 o'clock in the morning. That was not the way to get through with the work.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in what he supposed the Prime Minister said. It could not be done. He had placed the alternative fairly before the Committee, to go on now, or add another day to the Session.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought it was rather unreasonable for the Home Secretary to talk in this way about the Bill being worried to death. There were English Members of the House who had taken no part in the discussion of this measure, preferring to leave it to Scotch Members, who, he was 907 bound to say, did not seem to care about the Bill. So far as he was concerned, be would rather add a day to the Session than have a Bill discussed in such a manner, and at such a time. It was clear that it was quite impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the Bill now. If a Scotch Member got up and asked a question, he was shouted at and "pooh pooh'd" from the Treasury Bench; there was not the semblance of a discussion. He had heard a good deal about the Bill, and had been present at most of the Sittings when it had been discussed; and, to his mind, nothing was clearer now than that they were going to create a Political Officer, who bad no defined functions, no staff, and no assistants.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought he was strictly in Order in stating his reasons for supporting the Motion, which were in connection with the structure and importance of the Bill. He hoped a Division would be taken on the Motion.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no one was more strongly opposed than he was to legislating at that hour of the night (4 o'clock); but, at the same time, there was not much left to dispose of now, and he thought they might as well sit and finish the Bill. It was a very unusual thing for him to sit up so late at night; but there was only the Schedule left now to deal with, and be thought they might as well go on with it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.